No revolution is based on some predetermined plan or program of a revolutionary party. There is no recipe for revolutionary struggle. It is important to scientifically analyze the forms surplus value being extracted and the forms of proletarian revolution applicable to this reality. The proletariat will need, at the mass level and at its revolutionary level, a methodology to develop its political line nationally and internationally, with the international level as determinant, so a new definition of solidarity can arise. The proletariat needs to reclaim proletarian internationalism, not the concept of solidarity dominated by petit bourgeois ideology. The proletariat, nationally and internationally, will need to construct real democratic structures in order to coordinate and plan its battles against imperialism and its respective dominant classes by applying the three c’s: centralization of experience, centralization of knowledge, centralization of conclusions drawn out of actual militancy. This process must develop from the emerging proletarian revolutionary struggles throughout the world, seeking to collectively advance the revolutionary science of the proletariat and, through this practice, build coordination and unity.

Some elements of discussion through past experiences: I am only introducing in this setting some succint positions, in this case, not well developped. It is basically a very limited synthesis/ condensed view of discussions and struggles waged at the level of the Haitian revolutionary prolatarian left on populism of the international left.

The Vietnam experience:
As in other countries, the Communist party of Vietnam changed its name to the Labor Party of Vietnam. This was not by accident. This was a reflection of populism in the party. This was a reflection of populism in its midst. It is impertive that we learn from them. In their practice, some proletarian practices in the interest of the working class were achieved, for example their capacity to organize the national bourgeoisie, but in the final analysis, what we really had in front of us was a non proletarian organization, an organization of laborers under the leadership of the petit bourgeoisie, that understood some elements of marxism. Ho Chi Min, himslef, in an interview, acknowledged the inexistant role of the working class in the party that was supposed to be a workers’ party. In this case, the Vietnamese revolution wasn’t able to really construct an autonomous party of the working class, with all its great contributions on popular warfare.

The Chinese experience
The Chinese experience is another historical experience. We must learn from the Chinese experience. Even though the Communist Party of China kept its name, it did not quite address the similar contradictions confronting the Vietnamese. The Communist Party of China was basically made up of peasants with a petit bourgeois leadership. We must admit, even with these limitations, the great contributions that Chinese revolutionaries brought to proletarian theory. The two lines struggles, during and after the installed popular take over, was in full force within the party and even during the Great Cultural Proletarian Revolution which had as one of its objectives to reinforce the proletarian base of the party. The proletarian alternatives were defeated and they weren’t able to build an autonomous proletarian organization. Populism, the peasant base, totally degenerated and gave way to the development of a bureaucratic bourgeoisie, finally for China to become an imperialist country. Deng did not become a capitalist roader. He was a rich peasant, a non-proletarian revolutionary who could only understand, because of his class origin, the construction of capitalism. Mao, at least in theory understood the contradiction, did call for the non proletarian recolutionaries to transform themselves, to politically rupture with their class origins…
The question of the role of classes and the question of class autonomy are questions that need to be fundamentally addressed in defining a strategic political orientation.

The Cuban experience
In this case, we must recognize that many objectives in the interest of the working class were addressed. When we look at the actual conditions and the the role of the working class in the social relations of production or in the political leadership of the movement, the presence of the working class was simply as a support group against the dominant classes of Cuba, under the leadership of radical progressive petit bourgeois elements, that transformed into, in this case, into a bureaucratic bourgeoisie. The Cuban social formation did advance. A positive leap forward occurred, sometimes against all odds, and with great difficulty. This advancement was done in a populist orientation, without really constructing the autonomous organization of workers.

Some proletarian revolutionaries such as Marx sometimes faulted in the understanding of class autonomy, in particular working class autonomy, while in some cases he also insisted on keeping the autonomy of the class. In the US he lauded the bourgeoisie but did not denounce its attitude towards the working class. He adopted a totally a different attitude in Germany.

We could also include the experiences of the National Liberation Movement in Africa and the Middle East

The RCP kept the name but totally dropped the role of the working class. Their concept of revolution is that of populism. A revolution without a revolution that could only, in the final analysis, perfect capitalism, not transform society.
In the struggle against capital, in the different forms in wich surplus value is extracted, the working class must build its own organization and unify all others popular classes under its leadership to achieve its ultimate goal, the abolition of wages. NO OTHER CLASS IN SOCIEY CAN LEAD IN ACHIEVING THIS GOAL BUT THE WORKING CLASS. The other classes has proven their historical impotenccy of radically transforming society…

Populism, for me, is an approach that when looking at people, masses, the people’s camp and minority nationalities, we look at them outside any notion of class or class struggles. In a sense, when these concepts are mentioned, we are talking about a big mass of laborers, a big mass of people that are in an objective economic /political relation of being dominated and /or exploited. In fact, if we look at national minorities, even when they respond as a bloc on certain issues, various class interests can be delineated in the manner in which various responses are articulated inside these national minorities. The civil rights movement could be a perfect example. This movement was not a homogenous movement, even in its most basic reformist demands. Even when positions were articulated in the same class, differences were emerging based on the class interest of the proponents of these positions. The slave movement in Haiti also went through the same right of passage to finally come to term in 1804. The opportunist line of Toussaint was based on his class interest. He was a freed slave and owned slaves himself, versus the revolutionary line that led Haiti to its independence. Inside these movements, there were classes with particular interests, sometimes fundamentally different. One of the most valuable lessons one could learn in the popular war for the independence of that piece of land that became Haiti is the lack of independence and autonomy of the slaves in the class alliance in popular camp. I think the same could be said in the civil rights movement.

Another populist approach is looking at the masses et al in an amalgam, therefore with no class distinctions. More often, we look at the non-proletarian dominated classes that are in majority, even sometimes poorer than the working class. This way of seeing the masses usually benefits a sector [fraction] of the bourgeoisie, landlords and fractions of the petit bourgeoisie. This interpretation usually helps the emergence of a political line allowing popular sector to support fraction of the dominant classes in pursuing their internal contradiction for a restructuration based on struggle within the dominant classes. Different brands of populism can be found in the reactionary camp and also in the petit bourgeoisie. One of the most important characteristics of the petit-bourgeois populist trend is to categorically deny the role of the working class in a period of capitalism and most importantly, when capitalism reaches it most advanced stage, imperialism. This trend also denies the autonomy of the working class and most importantly, rejects the leadership role of the working class. One of the reasons given for their denial is the fact that the working class is a minority, or that the American working class is reactionary.

The capitalist class is a minority and has been a minority in many societies for quite some time. At this stage of imperialism, finance capital is also a minority inside that minority, but it is the hegemonic fraction leading the capitalist class. The argument that the American working class is reactionary is simplistic. This is the same class that gave us May day and that wrested with its blood some democratic rights we are still enjoying. This argument does not hold up. In the seventies, the valiant struggle of the coal miners only proved the capacity of the working class. NUWO [National United Workers Organization] could have been a good experience if it wasn’t a front organization. Populism negates the historical role of the working class, the autonomy of the working class and the leadership role of the working class. Historical materialism defines and analyzes two objective realities: the process of capitalism exploitation and proletarian revolution/ revolution under the leadership of the working class and class struggle that prepares and accomplishes it. The theory of surplus value and proletarian leadership will allow us to rupture radically with bourgeois ideology and for the proletariat to build its political line at the mass and revolutionary level.

In addition, just because you post something on Kasama doesn’t require anyone to reply. If they want to do so, fine, if not, maybe check what you post and write something more substantial. We appreciate your contributions here, but spare us the self-righteousness.

Of course Fred is right in claiming that their (and our) struggle is one between the oppressor and the oppressed! We couldn’t call ourselves Marxists if we disagreed. What I think is that, as has been repeatedly stated here, a socialist revolution won’t take the character of two homogeneous blocs facing off against each other. Ultimately, revolution will be waged on the political battlefield over broad social issues, and, consequently, broad social alliances. It’s not that we deny class struggle, it’s that it’s far more complex than a simple “worker vs boss” binary. The proletariat and bourgeoisie are sociological groups, but, when speaking about socialist revolution, I think it’s important to understand that these two classes represent two radically different societies, and the class nature of any struggle we take up depends on how we apply the proletarian vision of human liberation.

So, yes, brother Fred is 100% correct! But no, neither the Black liberation struggle nor ours should take the narrow stance of reducing revolution to a matter of workers vs bosses. It certainly wasn’t the case for the Panthers.

Sorry if this was jumbled. I can clarify if you wish.

The history of every society is the history of class struggle. This doesn’t mean that class struggle is the principal phenomenon that one can observe in the history. It really simply means historical phenomena, that are the only historical reality, are nothing else but complex forms of class struggles. The classless society we aspire to is basically inexistent in history. Current societies can only permit us to envisage certain features of future classless societies. We can only see, to some limited degree, a few traits that can only be the result of the transformation of class struggle under the effect of that class struggle. For me, primitive communism is not identical, or similar to the communist society that will replace capitalism as a mode of production and social form of organization.

Class existence and class struggles were not discovered by anyone. Class existence is only related to the historically determined phase of the development of production. Class struggle will objectively lead to class dictatorship and eventually will also finally lead to the total abolition of classes and eventually to a classless society. Concepts such as working people and people’s camp only mean a grouping of classes and fractions of classes that are all being dominated and exploited by other classes. Each of these classes that belong to the people’s camp also do have different interests and objectives, sometimes even contradictory. The historical analysis of these classes in the people’s camp and all classes for that matter is the analysis of class struggle and its effect. The ideology of a class and its class-consciousness are not created or invented. It doesn’t come from outside the class, as elaborated by Lenin, but it’s the product in the material conditions facing adverse ideologies and its own. European capitalism confronting feudalism needed, in a flux and reflux process, to come up with its own concepts of freedom, liberty, religion in its struggles for political power against feudalism. American capitalism did not have the privilege of fighting feudalism. Its struggle was against colonialism combined with an internal struggle within capitalist exploitation on the extraction of surplus value and slave labor. This objective reality enabled a very autonomous brand of capitalism.

In Haiti, as opposed to European capitalism, although the slaves were the principal force of the revolution, the new emerging feudal class was the leading force in the popular war against slavery. That class alliance, which bourgeois ideologues nowadays identify as a pigmented alliance of black and mulattoes, was a class alliance of two classes that shared a common interest against colonialism but fundamentally differed on slavery. Haiti’s example is quite
profound. Proletarian intellectuals, based on the experience of European capitalism, usually identify feudal landlords[ correctly so] as a reactionary class, but in Haiti they played a revolutionary role for a short period. Haiti is still paying the consequences of the way capitalism, a very dependent and deformed capitalism, is “developing” as a social form of organization versus feudalism as its antagonistic counterpart. So we have two antagonistic modes of production co-existing, under and conditioned by imperialist domination.

Revolution will always take the form of class against class. Revolution should not be seen as an act of rebellion. Revolution is an objective process. It implies two important yet contradictory aspects, unifying democracy and violence. These two aspects exist in a contradictory unity. It implies the violent destruction of the old regime of production, capitalism versus feudalism, and capital versus labor, in the objective of destroying the old for the new.
I do agree with the need not to fall into workerism, although our definitions may differ. The success of a proletarian revolution will not depend only on the working class. It will not be a duel between labor and capital, I do agree with that point, but will depend on the capacity of the working class to unify all other classes under its leadership, against capital. Only the capitalist class can build capitalism, if we are talking of radical transformation… not a revolution without a revolution

“You know, a lot of people have hang-ups with the [Black Panther] Party because the Party talks about a class struggle. We say primarily that the priority of this struggle is class. That Marx and Lenin and Che Guevara and Mao Tsetung and anybody else that has ever said or knew or practiced anything about revolution always said that a revolution is a class struggle. It was one class – the oppressed, and that other class – the oppressor. And it’s got to be a universal fact. Those that don’t admit to that are those that don’t want to get involved in a revolution, because they know as long as they’re dealing with a race thing, they’ll never be involved in a revolution.

“We never negated the fact that there was racism in America, but we said that the by-product, what comes off of capitalism, that happens to be racism. That capitalism comes first and next is racism. That when they brought slaves over here, it was to make money. So first the idea came that we want to make money, then the slaves came in order to make that money. That means, through historical fact, that racism had to come from capitalism. It had to be capitalism first and racism was a byproduct of that.”

– Fred Hampton

As we know, most of the participants were workers, mainly skilled laborers, with a few unskilled workers, and there were even a few that could be called “middle class.” However, the majority of businesses in Paris at the time were small businesses and it was Commune practice to respect their property rights. The Vendome column was taken down by a private firm. On the 79-man Commune Council, there were 25 professionals, 21 skilled workers, 16 white collar workers, 14 self-employed artisans and 3 miscellaneous [ex-officers, etc.]. Not a single unskilled laborer was in the leadership.

I am not saying this to deny the overall revolutionary or proletarian character of the Paris Commune’s politics, but to point out some of the complications in an otherwise simplified view of what a “proletarian” uprising actually entails, especially the constellation of the alliances that can emerge.

I do think the general character of a revolution is one of polarization, but a political one, not one of demographics, and it can go under the names of “proletarian vs. bourgeoisie” if they are taken to represent two different kinds of societies being fought for. I do not think that means that the forces on the field will be two homogenous, self-contained blocs. Among the proletarian forces, which I believe will be mainly working class, I think we will find many from other classes, with different levels of commitment and motivations.

As with the Commune and all revolutionary movements since, such considerations have to be evaluated based on the balance of forces and concrete needs of the moment, not decided in advance based on sociological categories.

“It matters to the people what form of bourgeois rule they have (in part because some shifts in form lead to a shattering of peoples organization and hopes that take a long time to reconstruct). But it also matters that there are political forces exposing ALL forms of bourgeois rule.”

My concept of “democratic rights” is based specifically on a historical interpretation of what that terms means in the political culture of this country and indeed most countries that have adopted a “republican” (small “r”) form of government. What I believe matters to the people the is that the existence of democratic rights is an affirmation of egalitarianism because it is a check on the regimes power to treat them unfairly or unequally. That this is complicated by issues such as race and sex is obvious as are the limitations of 18th century Enlightenment philosophy. What it is important to remember is that the great change flowing from the destruction of monarchy and aristocratic rule created a mass culture of popular expectation, demands, willingness to fight, and a rationale (i.e. a “right” to) revolution.

As I conceive a communist regime it will be a form of republican government that does not replicate the hieratic division of society that the bourgeoisie accomplished through wage slavery. That is to say it will truly committed to egalitarianism. It is no wonder that over last 20 years the PRC gone form being the most egalitarian country on earth (as measured by political scientists) to one that has now replicated the inequality of Nepal, the poorest country in Asia. China has pursued riches for a few at the expense of a population that is increasingly angered by unfairness and entrenched privilege.

As for the contradiction of democratic rights under bourgeois rule and the dangers of conceding to reformism, I agree but this does not change my argument. China is not the only republic where the people are becoming increasingly angered, alienated and polarized by a realization of the governments unfairness and rejection of egalitarian principles. The monolith of the state is an imposing facade that in closer examination is deeply fissured. One way to work those fissures is to hammer away at the inability for the regime to protect the rights of the people because it can not fulfill the goal of equal and fair treatment. To recognize the reality of democratic rights also means to fight to restrict the governments ability to promote inequality through the embrace and unending subsidy of crony capitalism of which health insurance is only one representation.

Alomg the way in this struggle there is also the need to vigilantly maintain the ability to go to meetings and read literature (or websites) without getting arrested and to restrict
the ability of fascists to assault their growing enemies list of “unamericans.” This will require an enormous amount of tactical flexibility and the ability to initiate and maintain alliances. Such a movement has the capability to gain real traction and to be a force because it both embodies and informs the peoples resolve to begin drawing lines which it will not allow the regime, or fascists, to cross without a sharp and escalating response.

I don’t think Mike Ely’s article seeks to draw a “Great Wall” between the various manifestations of hierarchy, social divisions, and oppressive social relationships from the class dynamic. I think, more than anything, it seeks to move beyond the very simplistic, economist, and workerist notion of a socialist revolution being about workers vs bosses, which ignores the totality of capitalist social relations and the need for a revolutionary movement to be based on the politics of the proletariat (and its historical mission to liberate humanity).

I think it is still very common in the left for revolutionaries and radicals to search for the “answer” in uniting workers from different sections or social divisions, and on that basis develop a program. But, I think when that happens, when you unite people around an economic/social identity, it becomes about one side getting what they were after and ending the unity on that note. In other words, it doesn’t transcent “the narrow horizon of bourgeois right.”

I also think your comment points to the very real need to develop an understanding of the intersections between class and other social relationships. And of course, a working class exists, but I think we’d benefit on you expanding on your point on our narrow defintion of class.

Class is determined by relation to productive forces. Conditions determine consciousness. If class isn’t the determining factor in consciousness and revolutionary power, then how do you analyze general strikes? Seems you would be at a loss.

The last general strike in the US lasted for 4 days in 1934 organized by longshoreman
in San Francisco. Some of the most militant unions in America history have arisen workers moving people or goods such as train crews, ship crews, bus and subway drivers, truck drivers, etc. None of these workers produce products. They move things and many of them work in small groups or even individually. They do not belong to the “heavy battalions” of the industrial proletariat so beloved of Trotskyite newspapers. Where does their consciousness come from? The only mass left organizations in this country with the majority of proletarian membership (sometimes a large majority) were the foreign language federations of the Socialist Party and the very early Communist Party groups. These groups all failed because they were unable to adapt to American political/cultural conditions besides being tragically flawed on the issue of race. If revolutionary power flowed exclusively from mass concentrations of industrial workers than Britain would be communist and so would most of Western Europe.